Recently in an interview, Lt. Col. Allen West said that President Obama’s decision to ignore his generals was “probably the greatest military blunder the world will ever know.” Why did he say such a thing? One reason was the admission by the president at the last G-7 summit that the U.S. still lacks a “complete strategy” for training Iraqi troops to defeat ISIS.

To understand his criticism, we need to go back a few years to the recommendation by Army General Lloyd Austin. He was the operational commander on the ground and requested between 10,000 to 12,000 troops as a residual force. The president rejected that recommendation because of campaign promises and not on the reality on the ground. ISIS was able to exploit the situation since we left behind a power vacuum.

Col. West believes the president should admit his mistake and begin listening to his generals if the U.S. is to be successful in defeating ISIS. Moreover, we need to put diplomatic pressure on ISIS. We need a strategy to economically isolate ISIS. And we need a military strategy to defeat ISIS on the ground.

He says the president’s latest plan to sent 450 American troops to Iraq is “the equivalent of putting a Band-Aid on a sucking chest wound.” We are pretending to do something but aren’t really addressing the challenge of ISIS from the many fronts necessary to bring about its defeat. You can’t say we are disrupting ISIS when they hold daytime parades through Ramadi.

Col. West believes that we can defeat ISIS, but we can’t do it with half measures and no coherent strategy. He also reminds us that this is an ideological battle. We must also be able to defeat their propaganda. Recently on Point of View I talked with Dr. Sebastian Gorka (author of Defeating Jihad) about how America could do this.

We can defeat ISIS. What we need is a will and a way.

Senator Ben Sasse wrote another open letter. This one was addressed to majority America. His previous open letter was the Trump supporters. The latest one has generated all sorts of comments about the presidential candidates and the presidential campaign. In the midst of it he focuses some needed attention on the current crisis we have in America that the political parties are not addressing.

He says: “Washington isn’t fooling anyone — Neither political party works. They bicker like children about tiny things, and yet they can’t even identify the biggest issues we face. They’re like a couple arguing about what color to paint the living room, and meanwhile, their house is on fire.”

The net result is the harsh reality that most Americans don’t like either political party. In fact, he observes that when you ask people if they identify as Democrat or Republican, they are likely to say “neither.” This is especially true of the younger generation.

He also believes that “one of the most obvious [problems] is that we’ve not passed along the meaning of America to the next generation. If we don’t get them to re-engage — thinking about how we defend a free society in the face of global jihadis, or how we balance our budgets after baby boomers have dishonestly over-promised for decades, or how we protect First Amendment values in the face of the safe-space movement – then all will indeed have been lost.”

Much of his letter is devoted to the poor choices we seem to have for the November election. But I hope people won’t miss the bigger picture. While pundits and commentators focus on the individual trees and leaves, his analysis of the forest reminds us of the failure of Washington and the political parties. Changing that culture and solving some of America’s biggest problems won’t happen with one candidate or within one election cycle.

During this election season you may hear candidates use a phrase that has been used by politicians for the last two decades. When a social issue is discussed, the politician merely responses that we should “let the states decide.” After all, isn’t that what federalism is all about? Various states may come to different conclusions about issues ranging from restrictions on abortion to the legalization of marijuana.

It sounds reasonable to “let the states decide” until you look at what is happening around the country. Yesterday, for example, I talked about how the Obama Education Department is threatening to pull $6 million in federal funds from a school district in Illinois because they won’t let a transgender male undress in the girl’s locker room.

The Obama Justice Department is now threatening to cut off education funding to the entire state of North Carolina because of a law that prohibits men and boys from using women’s restrooms. This was a law passed by the legislature and signed by the governor. But some in the Justice Department believe it violates civil rights laws.

These are just two current examples of many more cases where the federal bureaucracy is using financial threats to force state and local governments to do what they demand. It has become apparent that progressives in these federal agencies are not content to “let the states decide.” They are using governmental power to bully state and local governments.

For decades, we have heard politicians argue that many of these social issues are state matters and that is why we should “let the states decide.” It is becoming apparent that we should now be asking them what they are willing to do at the federal level to stop what these federal agencies are doing.

Often when politicians say, “every state should decide” they are really saying they plan to do nothing. It is time to call their bluff.

A group of 51 families whose children attend Palatine High School in Illinois have filed a federal lawsuit over transgender access to bathrooms and locker rooms. They did so because the Obama Department of Education has threatened to pull $6 million in federal funding unless the school officials allow a transgender boy to change in the girls’ locker room instead of in a separate facility.

The issue began when Student A filed a complaint with the Education Department. He was born a male but now identifies as a female, and has been accommodated in many ways by the school district. This included changing the student’s name on official records, allowing the student on the girls’ sports teams, and even granting student access to the girls’ bathrooms. The school district drew the line at providing the student unrestricted access to the girls’ locker rooms. Instead, they provided a separate facility down the hall. But that was not enough for Student A.

At issue is whether what the school district violated Title IX of the U.S. code. The Education Department essentially has redefined the word “sex.” Schools are not to discriminate against anyone on the basis of sex. Decades ago, everyone knew what that meant: boy and girls.

Now we are told that sex in the law is the same as “gender identity.” I don’t think that it is, but let’s have a debate about that in Congress. It is the job of the legislature, not the Obama Education Department, to make these types of changes in the law.

The lawsuit explains that the girls in the locker room do not want to see a “male in a state of undress.” It goes on to explain that they are also “afraid of being seen by, and being forced to share intimate spaces with, a male while they are in various states of undress.”

The Obama Education Department is essentially saying that either you allow this assault on student privacy and traditional values or lose $6 million in federal funds. School districts should not have to make this choice.

I suppose we shouldn’t really be surprised that various social media outlets are censoring posts they don’t like. Three years ago, officials at the National Religious Broadcasters called my attention to social media censorship. But what has been happening at Facebook I think deserves more attention.

Let me start by saying that this is not a First Amendment issue. Facebook or any other social media outlet is free to decide what they allow to be posted on their platform. When I last wrote about this, I talked about their decision to pull a page by former Governor Mike Huckabee calling for “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day.” Later the page was reinstated. But now more and more people notice that their posts disappear.

The problem is the fact that Facebook pulls content supposedly because it is “hateful, threatening, or obscene.” It can also be pulled if the content “attacks an individual or group.” If one of these criteria is met, then I think we could all agree with their decision. But their rules seem based more on ideology than on any objective criteria. They also threaten that if you are deemed to be in continued violation, Facebook will disable your account.

You can search for articles by people who found themselves in violation of Facebook’s policies but were never told which policy was violated. And some believe these policies are subjective and always changing.

Many countries (like China) censor various social media with the tacit approval from the online companies. On an open microphone, the Facebook CEO was overheard assuring the German Chancellor that they would remove anti-immigrant posts about the refugee crisis.

Be careful what you post on Facebook. The overseers might decide it violates their subjective policy and pull it down. Do it again, and they might pull your account.

In the first quarter this year, the nation’s gross domestic product grew by just one-half of a percent. Let me say to people who are younger and have grown up with this slow growth that this is terrible. From 1950 to 2000, the U.S. economy grew at an annual rate of 3.5 percent. In fact, President Obama may be the only president in modern times to have presided over an economy that never even reached 3 percent growth.

Is there anything Congress and the next president can do to end America’s slow growth tailspin? John Cochrane at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution has written a column with that name. He says there are three camps of economists who try to explain why growth is slowing down.

One camp says we’re run out of ideas. “We were supposed to have flying cars and all we got was Twitter.” The second camp argues this slow growth is due to such factors as “secular stagnation” or a “saving glut.” The third camp (which is his view) is that the U.S. economy is simply overrun by an out-of-control and increasingly politicized regulatory state. “If it takes years to get the permits to start projects and mountains of paper to hire people, if every step risks a new criminal investigation, people don’t invest, hire or innovate.”

If you compare America to a middle-aged overweight person, you get different solutions. The first camp says that’s just the way it is, so get used to it. The second camp looks for a miracle diet. The third camp says get back to basics: eat right and exercise.

We may not like to hear that the best option is to get back to basics because that may seem painful. But that’s what it will take if we want to get out of the slow growth doldrums. If we are to stimulate economic growth in America we need to make it possible for people to invest and innovate.

You may have noticed that some politicians and judges are no longer talking about the freedom of religion. They now promote a lower standard they call the freedom of worship. The difference is significant. Freedom of religion implies the freedom to express your religious values in the marketplace. Freedom of worship implies you only have that freedom inside your church.

The case of Dr. Eric Walsh suggests that even that weaker “freedom of worship” standard is under attack. He holds both a medical degree and a doctorate in public health. He is an outstanding health director that President Obama even appointed to his Presidential Advisory Council on HIV/AIDs.

After being interviewed by the State of Georgia Department of Public Health, he was offered the position of District Health Director. Dr. Walsh immediately accepted and made plans to move his family across the country from California to Georgia. But then the Georgia officials decided to check into what he has been teaching at his church. They requested copies of his sermons and searched online for others. The Department of Public Health then decided to rescind the job offer that Dr. Walsh had already accepted.

It is worth noting that the behavior of the department in reviewing the sermons was so egregious that its own counsel twice warned them that: “under federal law Dr. Walsh’s religious beliefs could play no role in any employment decision.” Nevertheless, they withdrew the offer and have marked him as a controversial person.

First Liberty attorney Jeremy Dys explains that: “No one in this country should be fired from their job for something that was said in a church or from a pulpit during a sermon.” Fox commentator Todd Starnes warns that: “what you say from the pulpit on Sunday could get you fired from your public sector job on Monday.”

This case illustrates that not only is freedom of religion under attack, but even the concept of freedom of worship is under attack.

Two weeks ago, the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces heard an historic case involving religious freedom in the military. This court is essentially the Supreme Court of the military and will have a far-reaching impact on people who serve in the military and other areas of governmental service.

Marine Monifa Sterling was court-martialed because she posted a Bible verse in her workplace. The Lance Corporal was stationed at Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. Her supervisor ordered her to remove it. She asked why, and the supervisor said, ‘I don’t like the tone.” The verse was from Isaiah 54:17 – “No weapon formed against you shall prosper.” The next morning, Sterling found that the verses had been torn down and thrown in the trash. She reprinted the verses and put them back up and later found out that she had been court-martialed.

Arguing for her before this military court was Paul Clement, a former solicitor general of the United States who has argued more than 75 cases before the Supreme Court. He argued that the military should accommodate religious exercise whenever it is possible.

The case is important because it will determine whether the requirements of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act should be applied to men and women serving in the military. Sterling’s freedom to post a Bible verse should be protected by that law, and a decision in her favor would be a significant precedent that service members have a right to religious freedom.

Michael Berry is the Director of Military Affairs at First Liberty and a frequent guest on Point of View. He reminds us that the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and the military code all protect the right of service members to express their faith freely.

The court should rule in her favor and thereby provide religious freedom for anyone serving in the military or other areas of governmental service.

Much has been written about Target’s policy for restrooms and fitting rooms. I think Glenn Stanton’s recent column was the most insightful. It would hard to accuse him of being anti-gay since his latest book has the title, “Loving My LGBT Neighbor.” His critique goes on for five pages, but here is a brief summary of it.

First, single-sex bathrooms weren’t discriminatory yesterday. Earlier this year, Target received a glowing 100 percent rating from the Human Rights Campaign on its Corporate Equality Index. That was when they had the same policy about bathrooms that most companies and North Carolina have today. The inconsistency, he says, “demonstrates the subjectivity and trendiness of the issue.”

Second, Target is solving no real problem. Do these stores have a real problem with transgender people feeling discriminated against? No they don’t. And Glenn Stanton even provides a quote from a six-foot, four transgendered person who admits that he, now she, has been “using public restrooms successfully all over the country for nine years now, without any trouble.”

Third, some men will exploit this policy to cruise women’s restrooms. If you do a quick search using key words, you will find articles and YouTube videos documenting how some men in the past and now more in the present have used these open bathroom policies for their advantage. Some are merely confused men. Others are obvious predators.

Fourth, Target is risking its primary clientele. The chain’s primary customers are mothers with children. A wise mother will probably avoid these stores. Target is risking their safety, modesty, and security to please the politics of 0.3 percent of the nation’s population.

These are just a few of his reasons why Target’s bathroom policy is a mistake.